An investigation on fracture toughness predictions from mini-sized uniaxial tensile specimens with global and local approaches
Tairui Zhang,Xiandong Shang,Naixin Zhang,Kai Lu,Mingjiang Xie
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2024.104366
IF: 4.374
2024-03-07
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics
Abstract:This study provides investigations on whether the fracture toughness can be accurately predicted from mini-sized uniaxial tensile specimens with existing global and local approaches. The critical toughness model, based on classical fracture mechanics, and the energy release rate (ERR) model, based on damage mechanics, were used as the two representative global approaches. While the finite element simulated compact tension (CT) specimen implemented with Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman model was used as the local approach. Specimen size effect was judged through the viewpoints of stress–strain relationship and damage development. It was proved that the specimen size has no significant influence on stress–strain relationship, and has little influence on damage developments when the thickness reaches 1.0 mm. Fracture toughness predictions were conducted on four metals, including two steels (SA508Gr.3Cl.1 and 18MnMoNbR), one aluminum alloy (6061-T651), and one titanium alloy (TC4). For TC4 exhibiting brittle cleavage features on the fracture surface of CT specimens, neither the global nor the local approach can accurately predict its fracture toughness. For 6061-T651 exhibiting both ductile and brittle features on the fracture surface of CT specimens, there exists significant macroscopic crack propagation at the moment of conventional fracture toughness determination. The existence of significant macroscopic crack is inconsistent with the "equivalent crack" assumption in the ERR model, leading to a failure in its fracture toughness prediction. For two steels following the "equivalent crack" assumption, the ERR model and the local approach yield more accurate predictions (with the maximum error around 10 %) than their critical toughness counterpart (with the maximum error around 30 %).
engineering, mechanical,mechanics